On
our campaigns page you'll find information in the areas of environment,
health, and human rights violations in UK. Response from the Petitions
Committee
Petition to the European Parliament

Briefly we have been studying
for the last ten years why cases of gross human rights violations
were being rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR);
particularly as all procedural requirements were being met. More
importantly, the facts of the case did not match the judgment given.
You could be forgiven into thinking that you were looking at two
different documents.

On investigation and later confirmed by the court officials themselves
all applications since changes introduced early 1990, are decided
on the basis of a secret report to which an applicant has no right.
More importantly, we were also informed by the court that the European
Court of Human Rights does not have to comply with the convention
articles (European Convention of Human Rights - ECHR), particularly
Articles 6 (i.e. fair and impartial hearing and 13 (i.e. right to
effective remedy).

At the present moment, all matters pertaining to legislation are
covered under Charter for Fundamental and Human Rights which is
the most compressive charter for the protection of human rights
of the EU citizen. This is exercised under the European Court of
Justice and it is the most transparent Court and with no margin
of appreciation.

Under the proposed draft treaty in the future, all matters relating
to human rights will be dealt with by ECtHR under ECHR and no longer
under the Charter of Fundamental and Human Rights but under the
ECHR convention which is very narrow in scope and a very wide margin
of appreciation. ECtHR does not operate in an open and transparent
manner as only 5% of the cases are ever allowed to proceed. If this
was allowed to proceed without safe guards being installed people
living outside of the EU will have more human rights protection
as opposed to EU citizens.

In short ECtHR lacks transparency,
consistency and accountability.

The Environmental Law Centre sincerely believes we cannot leave
this legacy for future generations to rectify and hope you will
support the petition and assist us in writing to your MEP and also
to the EU Parliament.

Conference of the State Parties to the UN Convention
against Corruption click
here

SayNOto Fluoridation

The new Water Bill came before the House of Commons
on 8 September 2003. It will force water companies to fluoridate
when requested by Strategic Health Authorities. Fluoridation is
ILLEGAL - it violates several EU Directives, EU Human Right Convention,
Convention on Biomedicine and the UK Poisons Act 1972.

There has only ever been one properly
conducted scientific study carried out in this country. The York
report published in 2000 pointed to increased risk of dental fluorosis
- the first visible sign of systemic poisoning. And, more importantly,
it said that more research was needed to assess whether fluoridation
posed any other risks to our health.

On 9th April 2003 Switzerland abandoned
fluoridation after 41 years. Countries that have rejected fluoridation:
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Sweden and Switzerland. Only three still practise fluoridation—UK,
Ireland, and Spain. The total population of countries where fluoridation
takes place is 98.5 million. The total population of countries and
regions that shun fluoridation is 286 million.

Facts:
Removal of Freedom of Choice for the Individual
Inability to Control Exposure to Fluoridated Water
Inability to Filter Fluoride from Homeowners Water Systems
Controlled Exposure from Other Sources